Two Hellenistic Defixiones from West Crimea Vladimir F

Two Hellenistic Defixiones from West Crimea Vladimir F. Stolba

HE NORTH COAST of the Black Sea has yielded a large collection of the lead curse tablets known as defixiones T or κατάδεσµοι.1 The overwhelming majority of them have been found in Olbia and her countryside, as well as in the Cimmerian Bosporus.2 Their specific archaeological contexts are rarely known. The two defixiones presented here come from western Crimea and are the first texts of this kind recorded thus far in this area.3

1 Abbreviations: DT = A. Audollent, Defixionum Tabellae (Paris 1904); DTA = R. Wünsch, Defixionum Tabellae Atticae (IG III.3) (Berlin 1897); IPNB = Iranisches Personennamenbuch I–VIII (Vienna 1977–2013); Justi, NB = F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg 1895); SGD = D. R. Jordan, “A Survey of Greek Defixiones not included in the Special Corpora,” GRBS 26 (1985) 151–197. 2 For a list of the finds from the northern Black Sea region see A. Avram, C. Chiriac, and I. Matei, “Defixiones d’Istros,” BCH 131 (2007) 385–389, 420. For more recent publications and amendments of earlier published texts see S. R. Tokhtas’ev, “A New Curse on a Lead Plate from the North Pontic Region,” ACSS 15 (2009) 1–3; O. Caloru, “Old and New Magical Inscriptions,” ZPE 176 (2011) 135–136; A. Belousov and N. Fedoseev, “A New Magical Inscription from Panticapaeum’s Necropolis,” ZPE 190 (2014) 145–148. 3 One defixio from the State Hermitage collection listed under “Cher- sonèse” in Avram et al. (BCH 131 [2007] 388, no. 16 = DT 92) and in V. Cojocaru, Bibliographia classica orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini (Cluj/Napoca 2014) no. 1559, comes from Kerch. Audollent’s heading “Chersonesus Taurica,” under which his no. 92 appears in DT, refers to the entire Crimea, not to the city of Chersonesos. According to L. Stefani (“Erklärung einiger im Jahre 1867 im südlichen Russland gefundenen Gegenstände,”

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292 2016 Vladimir F. Stolba

264 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

Fortunately, their provenance and archaeological context can be reliably ascertained. Both inscriptions originate from the Chernomorskoye district of the Crimea (Tarkhankut Penin- sula), where, in the winter of 2012, they were found by chance at a small ancient farm north of the modern-day coastal village of Mar’ino (former Dzhan-Baba). A multitude of such rural sites in the peninsula’s inland were identified by two regional survey projects conducted in the area between 2007 and 2013.4 The fact that virtually all rural sites in the area emerge around 360 B.C., after the entire north-western Crimea became depen- dent on Chersonesos, and cease to exist abruptly around 270 B.C.5 provides TPQ and TAQ for the context. The lettering of inscriptions suggests the second half of this time span, ca. 320– 270, as their likely date. Including patronymics, the tablets name seven individuals, male and female, who have not been previously attested in the ___ Compte-rendu de la Commission impériale archéologique pour l’année 1868 [St. Petersburg 1869] 121), the tablet was found “in einem Grabe der Tauri- schen Halbinsel.” Its more accurate provenance is given in E. M. Pridik, “Grečeskie zakljatija i amulety iz Južnoj Rossii,” Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija (Dec. 1899) 115. According to Pridik, the defixio was found in 1867 in the necropolis of Pantikapaion on the south-western slope of the Mithridates Mount. Its non-Chersonesean origin is also apparent from the Ionic dialect employed in the text (cf. already Audollent p.145: “ἐργασίην et ζόης ionicae sunt dialecti”). 4 T. N. Smekalova and V. F. Stolba, Monuments of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age on the Tarchankut Peninsula (Simferopol 2009); P. G. Bilde, P. Attema, and K. Winther-Jacobsen (eds.), The Džarylgač Survey Project (Aarhus 2012); V. F. Stolba, J. Andresen, F. N. Lisetskii, and I. N. Khrapunov, “Surveys in the Chernomorskoye District of Crimea,” in D. N. Kozak (ed.), Archaeological Researches in Ukraine, 2012 (Kiev 2013) 87–89 (in Russian); V. F. Stolba, Greek Countryside in Ancient Crimea: Chersonesean Chora in the Late Classical to Early He- llenistic Period (Aarhus 2014) 26–27; V. F. Stolba and J. Andresen, “Un- veiling the Hinterland: A New Type of Hellenistic Rural Settlement from Crimea,” Antiquity 89 (2015) 345–360. 5 V. F. Stolba, “La vie rurale en Crimée antique: Panskoye et ses en- virons,” Études de Lettres 1–2 (2012) 318, 323–324, and Greek Countryside 22– 24.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 265 city’s prosopography. The presence of both Greek and non- Greek names provides important evidence of multicultural encounters in the Chersonesean countryside, which otherwise could be conjectured solely from the burial data6 and pottery assemblages.7 While both tablets document the practice of magic and malediction in the rural context of western Crimea,8 the judicial defixio no. 1 also offers an important addition to our knowledge of local institutions. Numbering among the longest texts ever discovered in the countryside of Chersonesos,9 both inscriptions were found just outside the farmhouse wall, at a distance of less than one meter from each other. Coming virtually from the same findspot, they also deploy the same magic vocabulary (κατορύσσω), which otherwise is not very common. Although one of the inscriptions was written backwards, their lettering is very similar. All this

6 V. F. Stolba, “Multicultural Encounters in the Greek Countryside: Evi- dence from the Panskoye I Necropolis, Western Crimea,” in E. Papuci- Wladyka et al. (eds.), Pontika 2008. Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times (Oxford 2011) 329–340, and Études de Lettres 1–2 (2012) 325–327; V. F. Stolba and E. Rogov, Panskoye I II The Necropolis (Aarhus 2012) 53–59, 357–359. 7 V. F. Stolba, “Handmade Pottery,” in L. Hannestad et al. (eds.), Pan- skoye I I The Monumental Building U6 (Aarhus 2002) 180–200, and Études de Lettres 1–2 (2012) 338–342. 8 For other evidence of βασκανία from the Crimea see V. F. Stolba, “Cowrie and Other Charms from the Panskoe I Necropolis,” in V. Ju. Zuev et al. (eds.), The Phenomenon of the Bosporan Kingdom: Sacred Meaning of Region, Monuments, and Finds (St. Petersburg 2007) 157–162, 382–383, and “Beads, Pendants and Charms: The Evil Eye Belief among the Greek and In- digenous Population of Taurica,” VDI 2 (2009) 109–128; Stolba and Rogov, Panskoye I II 348–349. 9 Two other inscriptions, one in Doric and the other in Ionic, are private letters on pottery: V. F. Stolba, “A Greek Private Letter from the Settlement of Panskoye (North-western Crimea),” VDI 4 (2005) 76–87 (Panskoye, ca. 350 B.C.) [Bull.épigr. 2006, 295; SEG LV 859; M. Dana, REA 109 (2007) 82– 83, no. 7]; E. I. Solomonik, “Two Antique Letters from the Crimea,” VDI 3 (1987) 114–125 (Kerkinitis, ca. 400 B.C.) [SEG XXXVII 665; Dana, REA 109 (2007) 83–84, no. 8].

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

266 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES leaves little room for doubt that both were produced by the same hand and are very close in date. My study of these objects is based on high resolution photographs kindly provided by Sergey Zagorny, the owner at the time, whom I should also like to thank for providing the measurements and information regarding the circumstances of discovery, as well as for permis- sion to publish the objects.

Tablet 1 ( fig. 1.A–B) The tablet is oval in shape, 4.4 cm in height, 7.0 in length, and 0.15 in thickness; weight 32.4 g. It is fully intact with all edges preserved. The tablet was inscribed on only one side and, in contrast to common practice, was neither folded nor pierced. The text is scratched clearly but rather carelessly and consists of five lines starting at the left edge. Line 5 is placed at some distance from the others, at the bottom of the plate, and is written upside down. Except for the ends of lines 1 and 2 where the scribe felt a bit short of space, the letters are spaced evenly and range in height from 2 to 7 mm, except for an omicron in the middle of line 1, which is rendered simply by a dot. Αριακον τὸν Αρσατειος καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανιστὰς 4 κατορύσσω vacat Αρι( ) I bury Ariakos, the son of Arsates, and the orphanistai. Ari( ). Palaeography: Lunate sigma, which is attested in fourth-century B.C. inscriptions on numerous occasions, is used throughout the text.10 The strokes composing individual letters do not

10 On lunate sigma see P. Gorissen, “Litterae lunatae,” AncSoc 9 (1978) 149–163. Cf. also V. F. Stolba, “Hellenistic Ostrakon from Olbia,” ZPE 151 (2005) 91 with n.3, for its chronology in private documents from the north-Pontic area. The use of lunate letter forms in Hellenistic coin inscriptions is discussed at length by P. Kinns (R. Ashton, P. Kinns and A. Meadows, “Opuscula Anatolica IV,” NC 174 [2014] 1–15).

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 267

Figure 1A: Tablet 1, photograph

Figure 1B: Tablet 1, drawing always make joins. Omicrons are small, less than half of the height of other letters, and are made of two semi-circles. The reason for an omicron in line 1 being rendered differently, just by a dot, is unclear. Given that it occurs in the victim’s name,

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

268 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES this might well be an emotional expression. The shape of an epsilon in 2, consisting of a curved line and two horizontal bars, is very indicative. An identical, semi-cursive epsilon is found in line 4 of Tablet 2, which again suggests the same hand. 1: Nu at the end of the line is written backwards. A slightly out-curved shape of its right vertical suggests that the defigens might have been right-handed. 4 κατορύσσω: the verb is attested in the vocabulary of binding spells, but is nowhere near as common as other binding verbs (καταδῶ, καταγράφω, etc.). It occurs in several defixiones from Athens,11 where it constitutes part of magic formulae: καταδῶ, κατορύττω, ἀφανίζω (ἐξ ἀνθρώπων) (occasionally also supplemented by καταπατταλεύω) or ἀφανίζω καὶ κατορύττω, in one text also repeated as ἐπικατορύττω.12 Among other cases, an interesting example is offered by an opisthographic curse tablet found in 1906 in the necropolis of Pantikapaion,13

11 DT 49.17 = Syll.3 1261, ca. 300 B.C.; A. Abt, “Bleitafeln aus Münchner Sammlungen,” ArchRW 14 (1911) 155–156, no. 5; E. Ziebarth, Neue attische Fluchtafeln (Göttingen 1899) 109–110, no. 10; E. Ziebarth, SBBerlin 33 (1934) 1040–1042, no. 23; J. G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford 1992) nos. 20, 56; G. Ottone, “Tre note sulle ‘Defixiones iudiciariae’ greche di età arcaica e classica,” Sandalion 15 (1992) 42; F. Co- stabile, “Defixiones dal Kerameikos di Atene – II maledizioni processuali,” MEP 3 (2000) 67–69; E. Eidinow, Oracles, Curses and Risk among the Ancient Greeks (Oxford 2007) 413–414; D. R. Jordan and J. Curbera, “A Lead Curse Tablet in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens,” ZPE 166 (2008) 135–150 [SEG LVIII 265.A.1], ca. 345–335 B.C. 12 Abt, ArchRW 14 (1911), no. 5 [SGD no. 49]. 13 B. Pharmakowsky, “Südrussland,” AA (1907) 126–128 [SGD no. 170]; G. Bevilacqua, “Esseri rapitori e divinità femminili vendicatrici,” SMSR 76 (2010) 83–84; also mentioned in Otčety Imp. Archeol. Komissii 1906 (1909) 91 and V. Škorpil’s report on the 1906 excavations in Kerch (Izvestija Impera- torskoj Archeologičeskoj Komissii 30 [1909] 60 no. 32 with n.2), where he an- nounced a proper publication of the text and photographs for an issue of IIAK. In 1918, Škorpil was killed by robbers in Kerch, and his promise remained unfulfilled. Jordan’s note (SGD p.195) that the tablet was pierced is, unfortunately, a mistake, which has also slipped into other publications

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 269 where it begins the texts on each side. Finally, it also occurs in a second-century B.C. spell from Lilybaion14 and an agonistic defixio from Rome.15 Although participial forms are also attested,16 in the curse tablets the verb generally appears in the first-person singular present active indicative followed by the accusative of the victim’s name. Meaning literally “I bury such- and-such,” here it implies an act of binding a person by bury- ing the tablet bearing his or her name.17 6: Written upside down. This undoubtedly refers to Ariakos, the intended victim mentioned in line 1. Perhaps, as in Tablet 2, the author intended to write the curse backwards, but for some reason stopped, turned the tablet around, and inscribed the text regularly. Αριακος: Non-Greek, and most likely an Iranian name. The name is unattested in this form, but a variant Greek spelling of the name occurs in Arrian’s Anabasis (3.8.5): Ἀριάκης Καππαδοκῶν, a commander of the Cappadocian contingent at Gaugamela. Both Greek forms probably render OIr. *Ariyaka-, a -ka-suffixed hypocoristic deriving from compound names containing the element *ariya- “Aryan, Iranian”18 (cf. OPers. ___ (e.g. Bevilacqua 83, “trafitta da due chiodi”). Cf. Pharmakowsky 127: “es war weder mit einem, noch mit zwei Nägeln durchgebohrt.” 14 E. Gàbrici, Epigraphica 5–6 (1942–1943) 133, no. 1929; SEG XXXIV 952.18; SGD no. 109; Eidinow, Oracles 430–432. 15 Bevilacqua, SMSR 76 (2010) 84; G. Bevilacqua, O. Colacicchi, and M. R. Giuliani, “Tracce di ousia in una defixio dalla Via Ostiense: un lavoro multidisciplinare,” in M. Piranomonte and F. M. Simón (eds.), Contesti magi- ci. Atti del convegno internazionale (Rome 2012) 229–236. 16 Ziebarth, SBBerlin 33 (1934) 1041, no. 23.B.17 (κατορωρυγµένος). 17 On the verba devotoria see DT LIV–LIX; M. Carastro, La cité des mages. Penser la magie en Grèce ancienne (Grenoble 2006) 180–181; Eidinow, Oracles 144–147, 413–414. On κατορύσσω see also L. Dubois, “Une table de malédiction de Pella: s’agit-il du premier texte macédonien?” REG 108 (1995) 190–197, at 195. 18 W. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen (Wiesbaden 1975) 40; Ch. Werba, Die arischen Personennamen und ihre Träger bei den Alexander- historikern (diss. Vienna 1982) 20, no. 29. On this Indo-Iranian diminutive

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

270 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

Ariyāramna-, Ariyḁr šan-, etc.). This Ἀριάκης might have been identical with Ἀριούκης, the father of Oromanes, of the Greek- Aramaic inscription from Aǧaça Kale.19 To this Cappadocian chieftain mentioned by Arrian, O. Blau ascribed small bronze coins traditionally attributed to Ariarathes I,20 on which he read l ’rywk “(coin) of Ariakes.”21 Yet neither his reading nor the attribution of this coin variety to Cappadocia is justified.22 ___ suffix, which has survived to the present day, see e.g. F. Edgerton, “The K-Suffixes of Indo-Iranian,” JAOS 31 (1911) 93–150; M. Mayrhofer, Ono- mastica Persepolitana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen (SBWien 286 [1973]) 286; C. A. Ciancaglini, “Il suffisso Indo-Ir. *-ka- nelle lingue iraniche antiche,” AGI 97 (2012) 3–33. 19 E. Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I (Leuven 1975) 204–206; P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake 2002) 876, 1024. On the name Ἀριούκης (-uka-suffixed hypocoristic of *Ariya-) see R. Schmitt, “Altpersisch *Ariyukā̆ -,” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88 (1974) 154–156; J. Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords attested in Non-Iranian Texts (Leuven/Paris/Dudley 2007) 117, no. 4.2.136; IPNB VII.1A 51, no. 21. 20 E. Merzbacher, “Satrapenmünze mit aramaeischer Schrift,” NZ 3 (1871) 427–429; J. Friedländer, “Satrapenmünzen,” ZfN 4 (1877) 269; F. Imhoof-Blumer, “Zur griechischen und römischen Münzkunde,” SNR 13 (1905) 266 with n.2; E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines II.2 (Paris 1910) 441–444, no. 673; IPNB IV 112, no. 349. Cf. however B. Simo- netta, The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings (Fribourg 1977) 47–48, no. 1, who was inclined to associate these coins with Ariarathes III. For illustrations see e also P. Debord, L’Asie Mineure au IV siècle (Bordeaux 1999), pl. 3.18; M. Ol- brycht, Aleksander Wielki i świat irański (Rzeszów 2004), pl. 5.2.C; J. Bodzek, ΤΑ ΣΑΤΡΑΠΙΚΑ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΑ (Cracow 2011), pl. 4.13a–b (also his p.202, for an overview of the discussion). 21 O. Blau, “Die Herren von Sophene und deren Münzen,” NZ 9 (1877) 98. 22 Despite some assertions that “Blaus Lesung ist keinesfalls auszu- schliessen“ (IPNB IV p.112), Lipiński (Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions 166–167) has demonstrated that neither Blau’s reading nor l ’rtgn or l ’rtym suggested respectively by E. S. G. Robinson (NC V 63 [1936] 196–197, no. 46; VII 1 (1961) 127) and A. D. H. Bivar (NC VII 1 [1961] 124–125) are plausible on palaeographical grounds, and that the legend should rather be read as l ’ryyn. Lipiński’s assumption (167) about the Lycian origin of this coinage is now independently supported by R. Ashton, “The Beginning of Bronze

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 271

This does not hamper, however, the identification of Ariakes with Ariarathes I promoted already by Nöldeke, Marquart, and others.23 Numerous examples of historical persons referred to in the sources by both full and short names24 make this assumption even more plausible. However, contrary to Heckel’s assertion,25 Ariakes should be understood as a regular hypocoristic form rather than a corruption of the name Ariarathes. OIr. *Ariyaka- has also been conjectured in Ηρακας occurring in an inscription from Pantikapaion (CIRB 1053, Ηρακας Ποντικοῦ ἀρχερµηνεὺς Ἀλανῶν, third century A.D.),26 ___ Coinage in Karia and Lykia,” NC 166 (2006) 11–12. 23 Th. Nöldeke, Persische Studien I (SBWien 116 [1888]) 31; J. Marquart, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran,” Philologus 54 (1895) 495. Cf. however H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage I (Munich 1926) 58, no. 111, 60, no. 113; C. Harrison, “Persian Names on Coins of Northern Anatolia,” JNES 41 (1982) 193 n.73. Berve’s (58) general historical considerations against such identification were refuted by A. B. Bos- worth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander I (Oxford 1980) 291–292. Cf. already E. Meyer, Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos (Leipzig 1879) 28. 24 R. Meister, “Vollnamen und Kurznamen bei denselben Personen überliefert,” Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 16 (1890) 173–174; O. Crusius, “Die Anwendung von Vollnamen und Kurznamen bei der- selben Person und Verwandtes,” Fleckeisen Jahrbücher 37 (1891) 385–394; J. Baunack, “Zu den Weihgeschenklisten aus dem Kabirion,” Philologus 50 (1891) 569–570; F. Bechtel and A. Fick, Die griechischen Personennamen (Göt- tingen 1894) 35–36. To the instances listed in these one may add Ἀτροπάτης (Arr. An. 3.8.4) also referred to as Ἀτράπης (Diod. 18.3.3) (Werba, Die arischen Personennamen 90–92, nos. 90–91). 25 W. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire (Oxford 2006) 44. 26 V. Miller, “K iranskomu elementu v pripontijskich grečeskich nad- pisjach,” Izvestija Imperatorskoj Archeologičeskoj Komissii 47 (1913) 94–95, no. 62; M. Vasmer, Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slaven I Die Iranier in Südrussland (Leipzig 1923) 39; P. Kretschmer, “Zum Balkan-Skythischen,” Glotta 24 (1935) 38 n.1; L. Zgusta, Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nörd- lichen Schwarzmeerküste (Prague 1955) 96–97, §110; V. A. Abaev, “Skifo- sarmatskie narečija,” in V. S. Rastorgueva et al. (eds.), Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija. Drevne-iranskie jazyki (Moscow 1979) 281.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

272 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES which, however, on equally good grounds, can also be explained from the Greek. Αρσατης: Unattested; also Iranian. The reconstruction of its original Iranian form allows two different possibilities. On one of them, the name can be understood as a single-stem hypocoristic *̥R š-āta-, from OIr. *̥r šan- (Av. aršan-), “man, male, hero,” suffixed by -āta. As a name component, *̥r šan- is well attested in both Old and Middle Iranian anthroponomastic material. Examples include single-stem hypocoristics as well as compound names, in which it may appear in either of the stems: OPers. ̥R šāma- (Gk.-Iran. Ἀρσάµης; from *̥r šan- and ama- “possessing the strength of heroes”),27 known as the name of Darius I’s grandfather and that of many other persons as well (also as a feminine name, Ἀρσάµη); OIr. *̥R ša-manah- (reflected in Gk.-Iran. Ἀρσαµένης [Hdt. 7.68]),28 OPers. Xšaya-̥r šan “rul- ing over heroes,”29 OIr. *̥R šā-ka (-ka-suffixed derivative that is attested in Gk.-Iran. Ἀρσάκης, Akkad. Ar-ša-ka, Parth. ’ršk),30

27 IPNB I.2 12, nos. 7–8; Tavernier, Iranica 13, no. 1.2.3, and 44, no. 2.2.2; IPNB V.5A 95, no. 52; VIII 40, no. 5. 28 IPNB I.1 77, ad no. 291; V.5A 94, no. 51. 29 Justi, NB 173–174; IPNB I.2 30–31, no. 66. 30 Justi, NB 27–29; Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut 206; IPNB I.1 77, ad no. 291; I.2 12, no. 9; II.3 23, no. 38; V.6A 33–34, nos. 12–15. Zgusta’s assumption that Ἀρσάκης may also derive from OIr. *̥r ša- “bear” is less plausible (Personennamen 274, §544; see R. Schmitt, Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos [Vienna 1978] 23–24, nos. 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2; IPNB VII.1A 45, no. 12). Among several examples of the name in Greek inscriptions (see LGPN), two also come from Pontic Olbia (IOSPE I2 93.7, 204.2). Cf. Ἀρσαλίων, also from Olbia (IOSPE I2 148.4). Zgusta’s (72, §60) interpretation of it as a two-stem short name, in which the second element is reduced to the initial -λ-, can perhaps be supported by a Pisidian name at Selge: Αρσα-λαγος (beside Αρσας; L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie mineure gréco- romaine [Paris 1963] 118; L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen [Prague 1964] §§107–2 and 107–11). Alternatively, it may also be understood as a graecisized single-stem diminutive based on *̥ r ša(n)- and suffixed by -λ- + -ιων, possibly, but not necessarily, through the transitional form Ἄρσαλος (e.g. Plut. De def. orac. 21) (cf. Gk. Σιµαλίων < Σίµαλος, based on σιµός). On such suffixal conglomerates in Greek diminutive names see for example E.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 273

*̥R š-aina31 (or *̥R š-ēna-),32 a single-stem hypocoristic reflected in El. Iršena), etc. The suffix *-āta- conjectured in Αρσατης is not without parallels in Old Iranian personal names:33 Av. Kauuāta- (hypocoristic derived from a compound name starting in Kauuā-),34 Av. Parāta- (hypocoristic from a compound name like Paraδāta- or Parō.dasma-),35 OIr. *Tavāta- (-āta-extension of 36 *Tav-; Babylonian Tu-ú-tu4), theophoric OIr. name *Miθrāta- (*Miθra- + -āta; attested in El. Mi-it-ra-da, Akkad. Mi-it-ra-a-ta, Gk. Μιθράτης),37 etc.; cf. also Av. appellative frasp-āt- “cushion.”38 In the form -ād (< *-āta) this suffix survives in the ___ Locker, “Die Bildung der griechischen Kurz- und Kosenamen. I,” Glotta 21 (1932) 142. 31 E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien (Paris 1966) 85; Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut 206. 32 Tavernier, Iranica 290, no. 4.2.1436; Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana 168 §8.639 and 291 §11.1.8.4.1 (reading *̥R š-ina-). 33 See however R. Schmitt, Die iranischen und Iranier-Namen in den Schriften Xenophons (Vienna 2002) 98 n.35, for reservations regarding such a suffix. Cf. also n.37 below. 34 IPNB I.1 58, no. 209; V.4 32, no. 11; Tavernier, Iranica 187, no. 4.2.634. 35 M. Mayrhofer, Zum Namengut des Avesta (SBWien 308.5 [1977]) 19 n.71; IPNB I.1 67–68, no. 246. 36 Tavernier, Iranica 323, no. 4.2.1683. 37 Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut 168; Tavernier, Iranica 251, no. 4.2.1118; IPNB VII.1B 267, no. 360. An alternative interpretation of this name pre- sumes a hypocoristic *Miθra-t-a- where -t- is not suffixal but a remnant of the second stem of a compound like *Miθra-tauxma- and similar (R. Zwan- ziger, Studien zur Nebenüberlieferung iranischer Personennamen in den griechischen In- schriften Kleinasien [diss. Vienna 1973] 98). Less plausible is the assumption of haplology: *Miθrāta- < *Miθra-rāta- (Benveniste, Titres et noms propres 104). Zwanziger’s interpretation seems to be preferred by R. Schmitt, “Die theo- phoren Eigennamen mit altiranisch *Miθra-,” in J. Duchesne-Guillemin (ed.), Études Mithriaques (Leiden 1978) 399–400. As he notes, however, in IPNB V.4 31–32, no. 11, Middle Persian Mahrād speaks in favour of suffix -āta- (see also n.33 above). 38 Ch. Bartholomae, “Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen,” in W. Geiger and E. Kuhn (eds.), Grundriss der iranischen Philologie I.1 (Strassburg

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

274 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

Middle Persian onomastic data.39 Cf. the Sasanid hypocoristic name Māhr̆ ād (from compounds starting in Mahr-: OIr. *Manθrāta-).40 Alternatively, the name Αρσατης may also render OIr. *̥R ša-t-a-, i.e. a two-stem hypocoristic of, e.g., OIr. *̥R ša-tavā (“with the strength of a hero,” from OIr. *̥r šan- and *tavah-),41 the meaning of which would have been similar to that of OPers. ̥R šāma- = Gk.-Iran. Ἀρσάµης. The occasion of the curse is not directly indicated but can be deduced with a high degree of probability. The mention of ὀρφανισταί, the college of guardians of orphans,42 among its targets hints at some legal dispute with regard to or maltreat- ment of orphans or their property. Greek ὀρφανοί, underage children who had lost their father, had to be given a guardian usually called ἐπίτροπος, even if their mother was still alive.43 The term ὀρφοβόται found in Hesychius44 and now attested in contracts from Morgantina concerning the purchase of land45 ___ 1895) 99, §182. 39 Ph. Gignoux, “Les noms propres en moyen-perse épigraphique,” in Ph. Gignoux et al. (eds.), Pad nām ī yazdān. Études d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’histoire de l’Iran ancien (Paris 1979) 62–63, 68, §2.3.10; Gignoux, IPNB II.2 8. 40 IPNB II.2 113, no. 546. 41 E. A. Grantovskij, “Iranskie imena iz priurmijskogo rajona v IX–VIII vv. do n.e.,” in N. V. Pigulevskaja (ed.), Drevnij mir. Sbornik statej akademiku V. V. Struve (Moscow 1962) 254; K. Radner (ed.), The Prosopography of the Neo- Assyrian Empire I.1 (Helsinki 1998) 124; IPNB VII.1A 45, no. 12. 42 Phot. s.v. ὀρφανισταί: ἀρχὴ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρφανικῶν· ἵνα µηδὲν ἀδικῶνται. 43 Cf. Lex.Seg. s.v. δίκην σίτου: τοῖς ὀρφανοῖς καὶ ταῖς τούτων µητράσιν. 44 Hsch. s.v. ὀρφοβόται: ἐπίτροποι ὀρφανῶν. 45 G. Manganaro, “Case e terra a Kamarina e Morgantina nel III–II sec. a.C.,” ParPass 44 (1989) 203–205, no. 1.6–7 [SEG XXXIX 1008], third century B.C.: ὀρφοβωτᾶν ἐόντων. Manganaro’s definition of the orphobotai as “tu- tori di orfani” is in line with the Hesychius’ gloss. He is off target, however, when he compares their functions to those of the ὀρφανοφύλακες and ὀρφανισταί. Unlike the orphobotai, who seem to have been family guardians, orphanophylakes of Athens and orphanistai in Histria and Selymbria were state supervisory bodies (see below).

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 275 was apparently an alternative name for such guardians in some Dorian cities. Clearly, for ἀµήτορες,46 motherless children, such guardianship was not required. The epitropoi were appointed either by the father in his will (ἐπίτροποι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καταλελειµµένοι) or by the archon (κατάστασις ἐπιτρόπων).47 Typically, they were selected among the family relatives, but this was not a requirement. Their number could also have varied from one to several, depending on the father’s will or the archon’s decision.48 In his Laws (924B) Plato suggests appointing five guardians, four chosen among the nearest of kin, two from both the father’s and the mother’s side and one among the friends of the deceased. Their responsibility was to maintain the orphans and provide for their education (τροφὴ καὶ παιδεία), as well as to represent them legally and handle their property until they came of age, by either managing it themselves or leasing it to a tenant.49 If their mother did not remarry and continued living in her deceased husband’s home, orphans and heiresses stayed with her.50 Otherwise, the epitropos was also supposed to provide the housing.

46 Schol. Nic. Ther. 134c: ἀµήτορες: ὀρφανοὶ κατὰ µητέρα. 47 Lys. fr.279 Carey; Arist. Ath.Pol. 56.6–7; Dion. Hal. Dem. 11. On these types of guardians see in detail O. Schulthess, Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht (Freiburg 1886) 57–73. 48 E.g. Lys. 32.3 (one guardian); Plut. Alc. 1.1 (two guardians); Dem. 27.4–5, 27.27–29, 29.31 (three guardians). The sale contract from Morgan- tina (SEG XXXIX 1008) mentions two guardians. 49 Dem. 38.7; Poll. 8.89. In Athens, such leases (µίσθωσις οἴκου) had to be granted by the archon, who put them up for auction. See Isae. 6.36; Arist. Ath.Pol. 56.7; Schulthess, Vormundschaft 141–142; A. Dorjahn, “Ὀρφα- νοί,” RE 18 (1939) 1198; A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens I The Family and Property (Oxford 1968) 104–108; D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (London 1978) 93–94, 144. 50 On remarriage in antiquity see S. R. Hübner, “Callirhoe’s Dilemma: Remarriage and Stepfathers in the Greco-Roman East,” in S. R. Hübner and D. M. Ratzan (eds.), Growing up Fatherless in Antiquity (Cambridge 2009) 61–82.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

276 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

The fact that guardianship also gave opportunities for misap- propriation of the ward’s property hardly comes as a surprise,51 being well illustrated by historical accounts.52 Such a concern can also be seen in Diogenes Laertius’ reference (1.2.56) to the Solonian constitution with regard to orphans, according to which the guardian was not supposed to cohabit with the mother of his ward, and that the next heir who would succeed on the death of the orphan was not permitted to become their guardian.53 A Catanian law ascribed to Charondas, but which is possibly of a later date, states that orphans should be raised by their next of kin on their mother’s side, while their property should be managed by the relatives on their father’s side (Diod. 12.15.1). This measure should have excluded the risk of plots against the lives of the orphans by their covetous relatives. The orphanistai of our inscription seem to have been a magistracy which oversaw the epitropoi, possibly holding an inter- mediate position between them and the archon, in case also in Chersonesos the archon was the principal official in charge of the orphans.54 The board of orphanistai has not been previously

51 H. Bolkenstein, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Groningen 1967) 280; W. den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects (Leiden 1979) 42. 52 Lys. 10.5, 32.9–17; Isae. 6.35–37; Dem. 43.75. 53 For discussion of whether this law really goes back to Solon see E. Ruschenbusch, Σόλωνος Νόµοι (Wiesbaden 1966) 43–44; R. S. Stroud, “Greek Inscriptions. Theozodites and the Athenian Orphans,” Hesperia 40 (1971) 288 with n.17; den Boer, Private Morality 48; I. Weiler, “Witwen und Weisen im griechischen Altertum. Bemerkungen zu antiken Randgruppen,” in H. Kloft (ed.), Sozialmassnahmen und Fürsorge. Zur Eigenart antiker Sozialpolitik (Graz/Horn 1988) 23 n.16. 54 It is unknown whether in other Greek states it was also the archon who was responsible for all matters with regard to the orphans, as was the case in Athens. Whether the supervision of war orphans was also his duty or rather that of the polemarch remains disputed. Cf. Pl. Menex. 248E, ἀρχῇ ἥπερ µεγίστη ἐστίν; Ulp. schol. Dem. 24.20, ὁ πολέµαρχος, ὅστις ἐπεµελεῖτο τοῦ τρέφεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ δηµοσίου τοὺς παῖδας τῶν ἀποθανόντων γενναίως ἐν πολέµῳ. For discussion see Schulthess, Vormundschaft 24; Dorjahn, RE 18 (1939) 1199; Stroud, Hesperia 40 (1971) 289 and 291 with n.32; den Boer,

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 277 attested in Chersonesos. Occasionally we hear of them in adjacent areas, but there too the information remains scarce. A Histrian dedicatory inscription of around 300 B.C. mentions orphanistai who held office in the year when a certain Nik[osthenes] was eponymous priest of the city: ὀρφανισταὶ οἱ ἐπὶ ἱερέω Νικ[οσθένους τοῦ δεῖνα, Εὐφρ]αίων Φιλίνου, Ἀπολ- λόδοτ[ος τοῦ δεῖνα – –].55 Further evidence of this collegium appears in a Hellenistic document from Selymbria, which con- tains a list of fines imposed by different officials.56 How many persons comprised this college is unknown, and it may have varied from place to place. The Histrian inscription preserves the names of only two guardians, after which it breaks off, and the Selymbrian inscription does not mention them by name. Similar state bodies responsible for safeguarding orphaned children are known from other parts of the Greek world, where they have been called ὀρφανοφύλακες: Athens (Xen. Poroi 2.7), Naupaktos (IG IX.12 624g.4, 628.5, mid-second century B.C.), Delphi (FD III.2 168.29, second century B.C.), Beroia (EKM 1.1, second century B.C.), and Gorgippia in the Cimmerian Bosporus (CIRB 1129, 1130(?), second century B.C.; SEG XXXVI 705, second century A.D.). The fifth-century law code of Gortyn refers to ὀρπανοδικασταί, officials responsible for

___ Private Morality 50. On the involvement of polemarchs with regard to war orphans see also J. Fournier and P. Hamon, “Les orphelins de guerre de Thasos: un nouveau fragment de la stèle des Braves,” BCH 131 (2007) 309– 381, at 322–336. For the Chersonesean constitution and attested magistracies see V. V. Latyšev, “Epigrafičeskie dannye o gosudarstvennom ustrojstve Chersonesa Tavričeskogo,” Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija (June 1884) 35–77; I. N. Novickaja, Gosudarstvennoe ustrojstvo Chersonesa Tavričeskogo v antičnosti (diss. Ekaterinburg 1992). 55 ISM I 184; Bull.épigr. 1955, 163 (p.243); D. Pippidi, Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias (Berlin 1962) 42–43, fig. 2. 56 G. Seure, “Antiquités thraces de la Propontide,” BCH 36 (1912) 549– 553, no. 9; M. Slavova, “Quelques particularités des inscriptions dialectales de Sélymbrie,” Thracia Pontica 3 (1985) 155, no. 12; A. Lajtar, I.Byzantion 266–267, no. S 3.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

278 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES safeguarding the rights of heiresses.57 In Ephesos, unlike His- tria, Selymbria, and probably also Chersonesos (our Tablet 1), ὀρφανιστής may have been an equivalent of ἐπίτροπος (Syll.3 364.28–29 = I.Ephesos 4, ἐπίτροπον ὑπὲρ ὀρφανοῦ καὶ τοὺς συ[νορφα]νιστάς, οὓς ἂν παραλαµβάνωσιν ἕκ[αστοι]).58 By contrast, in his old but still valuable Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht, Schulthess regarded the συνορφανισταί of this inscription as a special magistracy. The different meanings the term orphanistai seems to have had at different times and places, designating both family guardians and a magistracy, are reflected in the Suda s.v. ὀρφανιστῶν: ὀρφανισταί εἰσιν οἱ τοὺς ὀρφανοὺς τρέφοντες, ἢ ὀρφανισταὶ ἀρχὴ Ἀθήνησι τὰ τῶν ὀρ- φανῶν κρίνουσα, ἢ ὀρφανιστῶν τῶν τῆς ὀρφανίας ἐπιτρόπων. However, given that in Athens we already know of one state college in charge of the orphans, the ὀρφανοφύλακες mentioned by Xenophon, the reference of the grammarians to the ὀρφανισταί as an Athenian magistracy (ἀρχή) has caused some confusion. The matter is even more complicated, as, despite the wealth of inscriptions, none of these bodies is attested in Athens epigraphically. The natural question arises how these two colleges relate to each other and to the archon’s duty as principal supervisor of the orphans. While some scholars simply discard the ‘contradictory’ evidence of Photius, the Suda, and schol. Soph. Aj. 512 as being erroneous,59 Philippe Gau- thier, in his commentary on Poroi, distinguishes between the ὀρ- φανισταί and the ὀρφανοφύλακες, viewing them as the judges

57 I.Cret. IV 72.XII.6–17; R. F. Willetts, The Law Code of Gortyn (Berlin 1967) 27. 58 Based on schol. Soph. Aj. 512 (ὀρφανιστῶν, τῶν τῆς ὀρφανίας ἐπι- τρόπων), Bolkenstein (Wohltätigkeit 277 n.1) assumes such synonymy also for Athens, although in other Attic sources ἐπίτροπος is usually the term for a guardian. Cf. Schulthess, Vormundschaft 8–10, who regards Sophocles’ ὀρφα- νισταί as a poetic expression of epitropoi, while ὀρφανοφύλακες of Xenophon Poroi 2.7 must have been, in his view, a temporary official institution. 59 E.g. Bolkenstein, Wohltätigkeit 277 n.1; Schulthess, Vormundschaft 9.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 279 and the magistrates respectively.60 It has also been argued that the latter may have been responsible only for the protection of war orphans.61 As the terms do not occur simultaneously, one cannot rule out the possibility that ὀρφανισταί might have been an earlier name for the office which in the fourth century B.C. was known as ὀρφανοφύλακες. In any event, there is no reason to think that, as assumed by Schulthess, these were ex- traordinary magistracies set for a short period of time. To protect the rights of orphans against any offenders, including their guardians, Greek law provided two principal pro- cedures generally termed φάσις and εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως.62 While the former seems to have concerned only the estates of the orphans, the latter could also include other types of ill- treatment (ὀρφανῶν κακώσεως, ἐπικλήρου κακώσεως, οἴκου ὀρφανικοῦ κακώσεως).63 Such reporting (εἰσαγγελία) to the archon who brings the law-suits before the jury court could be done by any citizen. Unlike the φάσις, in this procedure the informer, who also acted as the prosecutor, ran no risk of a fine, even if he received less than one-fifth of the jurors’ votes. A guardian who was found guilty was fined and could also be deprived of his guardianship. A similar procedure might also have existed in Chersonesos. The orphanistai are also highly likely to have been directly involved in litigations. Although

60 P. Gauthier, Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon (Geneva/Paris 1976) 70. See however Schulthess, Vormundschaft 9–10. 61 J. H. Thiel, ΞΕΝΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΠΟΡΟΙ (Vienna 1922) 46–47. See also Stroud, Hesperia 40 (1971) 290. 62 Pl. Leg. 928B–C; Isae. 11.6; Dem. ap. Poll. 8.53; Harp. s.vv. εἰσαγγελία and κακώσεως. See Schulthess, Vormundschaft 189–220; Harrison, The Law of Athens I 115–119; MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens 94–95; D. M. MacDowell, “The Athenian Procedure of Phasis,” in Symposion 1990 (Co- logne 1991) 187–198; Weiler, in Sozialmassnahmen 26. 63 Other actions, which could be brought by a male orphan when he came of age and the guardianship had come to an end, were called δίκη ἐπιτροπῆς and δίκη σίτου: Schulthess, Vormundschaft 220–228; Harrison, The Law of Athens I 119–121.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

280 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES their exact role in the procedure remains unknown, the above excursus helps comprehend the reasoning behind our defixio and the potential role of the defigens who, as is usual for this kind of inscription, remains anonymous.64 However, we have fairly good grounds to assume that he was an epitropos or other wrongdoer reported to the orphanistai and the archon for ill- treating his wards and thus facing the judgment of a jury court. In that case, Ariakos, the son of Arsates, may well have been the informer and consequently the prosecutor in such an εἰσ- αγγελία κακώσεως law-suit. To appear in this role, both Ariakos and the defigens must have been citizens or at least free men.65 This sheds important light on the long-debated question of the status and cultural affiliation of the Chersonesean rural population. Whereas the presence of Greek residents is usually assumed for the larger coastal settlements, the identities of dwellers of smaller inland sites like the one that yielded our defixiones remain obscure. Here, it will be safe to conclude that the orphans in question must also have been descendants of freeborn citizens. Greek law was simply not concerned with other orphans,66 and thus the mention of orphanistai would otherwise be meaningless.

Tablet 2 ( fig. 2.A–B) The tablet is sub-rectangular in shape, measuring 4.1 cm in height, 8.6 in length, and 0.15 in thickness. It is inscribed only on one side and was neither folded nor pierced. When found, the tablet was not complete, but constituted one large fragment, which broke into four pieces after being discovered. Two additional fragments of this tablet were found some days later, less than one meter from its findspot. Thus six fragments, five of which are adjoining, are preserved. The total length of the text was seven lines, the first four of which are fairly well pre-

64 For rare exceptions to this rule see I.Kourion 127–136, 138–140, 142. 65 For the instances of freedmen appointed guardians see Harrison, The Law of Athens I 99 n.4. 66 Bolkenstein, Wohltätigkeit 276; den Boer, Private Morality 37.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 281 served and legible throughout. The tablet’s upper left corner and some fragments containing a large portion of lines 5–7 are missing. The letters are deeply incised; in several places, a clear buildup of metal is visible at the end of the strokes. Spacing is maximal between lines 1 and 2, decreasing towards the bottom of the text where the lines nearly touch one another. The height of the letters varies between 1 and 5 mm. The text is written backwards. ← Ματαν κατοράξαι̣[τε] ← καὶ τοὺς αὐτᾶι συµπρ̣[άσ]- ← σοντας καὶ Δάµαρχον [τὸν] 4 ← Γοργύθου ἐπίλαπτον ← ποιήσαιτ̣ε τοια̣[ύ]τ̣ας ← καὶ Ἀρι̣[σ]τ̣οµ̣[ένην τὸ]ν̣ Διονυ- ← σίου κα[ὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πά]ν̣τας. O that you had buried Mata and those cooperating with her, and made Damarchos, the son of Gorgythos, incapable of such (cooperation), and Aristom[enes], the son of Dionysios, and all [the others]. Palaeography: A lunate sigma is used throughout the text, but is executed in two different ways: as a semi-circle scratched in a single stroke (lines 2 and 5), or as a curve capped with a slanting bar added by an additional touch of the stylus (2, 3, 5). A sigma at the start of line 7 was perhaps also intended to be executed in the latter manner, but, owing to slipping of the hand, acquired a squared shape resembling a four-barred sigma. Omicrons are small, also showing two different manners of execution: a single, sometimes unclosed, loop and two, occasionally also non-joining, semi-circles. Xi (1) is without the centre upright. The use of an archaisized chi (3) in the form of an upright cross is exceptional, and, to my knowledge, unpar- alleled in the fourth-century inscriptions of Chersonesos. We find it, however, on several ostraka from the north-east sector of the city, where it has been thought to confirm their fifth-

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

282 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

Figure 2A: Tablet 2, photograph

Figure 2B: Tablet 2, drawing century B.C. date.67 Our late example demonstrates once again that the use of palaeography as a sole dating tool requires great caution. Even the far more numerous Attic materials are

67 J. G. Vinogradov and M. I. Zolotarev, “La Chersonèse de la fin de l’archaïsme,” in O. Lordkipanidze and P. Lévêque (eds.), Le Pont-Euxin vu par les Grecs (Paris 1990) 85–119 (repr. J. G. Vinogradov, Pontische Studien [Mainz 1997] 397–419); S. R. Tochtas’ev, “K onomastikonu i datirovke chersonesskich ostrakonov,” VDI 2 (2007) 116–119.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 283 insufficient to ascertain an exact date for the reintroduction of the X-shaped chi.68 1: Optative aorist κατοράξαι̣[τε] is an equivalent of Attic- Ionic κατορύξαιτε (from κατορύσσω/κατορύττω “bury”). It is by no means a graphic mistake, but is rather a regular Doric spelling as suggested by the form ἀνοράξαι (from the an- tonymic verb ἀνορύσσω “dig up”), which occurs twice in an inscription from Cretan Lyttos (I.Cret. I XVIII 64, third century A.D.): ἐπαρὰ κατάρα κακὴ τῷ ἀσεβήσαντι τοὺς δαίµονας καὶ εἰπόντι ἀνοράξαι καὶ τῷ ἀνοράξαντι αὐτῷ. Cf. the aorist par- ticiple ἀνορόξασα in the curse tablet from Macedonian Pella.69 On κατορύσσω see 264 above. The use of the second-person plural in Tablet 2 (lines 1 and 5) implies an appeal to daemons and/or underworld gods, among which Hermes—often with epithets such as Κάτοχος (primarily in Attica), Χθόνιος, or Καταχθόνιος70—Persephone, Gaia/Ge, and Hekate appear to be most often addressed in defixiones.71 2–3 συµπρ̣[άσ]σοντας: For its occurrences in curse tablets cf. DTA 37.10, 66.5; DT 47.5, καὶ ε[ἴ] τις : Ἑρ[µ]είει συ[µπράτ- τει]. Δάµαρχον [τὸν]: Terminals of a horizontal and a vertical stroke of a tau are discernible at the breaks. That the missing fragment is likely to have contained the definite article is also

68 See H. R. Immerwahr. The Attic Script: A Survey (Oxford 1990) 164–165. For the latest Attic examples of the upright-cross form see M. Lang, Graffiti and Dipinti (Agora XXI [Princeton 1976]) Ha 10, pl. 32 (third quarter of the fourth century B.C.). 69 SEG XLIII 434; cf. Dubois, REG 108 (1995) 190–197. 70 DTA 100; DT 22, 38–39, 50, 67, 73, 75, 246; SGD no. 75. On the chthonic aspect of his cult see S. Eitrem, Hermes und die Toten (Christiania 1909) 41–54. 71 Persephone: DT 38, 50, 81; SGD nos. 42, 75; Ge: DT 41, 69, 72, 79; SGD no. 75; Hekate: DTA 107, 108; DT 22, 24, 26, 29–33, 35, 38; I.Kourion 127. On other underworld powers addressed in Greek imprecations see DT LX–LXV; E. G. Kagarow, Griechische Fluchtafeln (Lviv 1929) 59–64; Gager, Curse Tablets 12–13; Eidinow, Oracles 148; Bevilacqua, SMSR 76 (2010) 77– 99.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

284 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES suggested by the length of lines 1 and 2, as well as by its presence in the personal name on Tablet 1 written by the same hand. 4: ἐπίλαπτον is a Doric form of Attic-Ionian ἐπίληπτος “disabled/incapable.” In combination with τοια̣[ύ]τ̣ας in the following line, it possibly refers to συµπράσσειν. The word regularly appears in medical texts, but is uncommon in the vocabulary of defixiones. 5 τοια̣[ύ]τ̣ας: Also a Doric form. The upper part of an alpha and the left slanting hasta of the following upsilon are clearly discernible on the tablet, and so is the horizontal bar of the second tau. The feminine genitive can perhaps be explained by the implicit τᾶς συνεργίας. 6–7 Ἀρι̣[σ]τ̣οµ̣[ένην τὸ]ν̣: Restored exempli gratia, taking into account the size of the lacuna between the omicron and the nu, which is ca. 6 to 7 letters long. A letter following the omicron could have been only mu or nu. Its upper right corner with a characteristic joint of two strokes, of which the vertical one is slightly curved, can be clearly discerned on an enlarged photograph. Identical joins appear in the mu starting line 1, as well as in the nus at the ends of 3 and 4. Other possible restorations of the appropriate length include common names such as Ἀρι̣[σ]τ̣οµ̣[ήδην] and Ἀρι̣[σ]τ̣όν̣[ικον], of which only Aristonikos has been previously attested in Cher- sonesos (IOSPE I2 543, A.D. 115). 7: The estimated size of the lacuna is 13 letters. For the restoration cf. I. I. Tolstoj, Grečeskie graffiti drevnich gorodov Sever- nogo Pričernomor’ja (Moscow/Leningrad 1953) 63 = Dubois, IGDOP 105. Ματα: A non-Greek feminine name. This is the second oc- currence of the name in Chersonesos. In a Roman-period epitaph, Ματα, read clearly on the stone, is mentioned as a σύνβιος of certain Ἦλ(ρ)ις Διονυσίου.72 According to Solo- monik, who republished the inscription, the absence of a

72 M. A. Šangin, “Nekotorye nadpisi Chersonesskogo muzeja,” VDI 3 (1938) 76–77 no. 5 = IOSPE I2 459+518.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 285 patronymic points to Mata’s alien or freedman parentage.73 The name is also attested on the southern shore of the Black Sea, in a late third-century B.C. epitaph from Amisos: Ματα Ὀλύµπου, Δηµητρίου γυνή.74 A detailed overview of Greek and non-Greek names starting with Ματ- has been given by L. Robert in connection with his study of a metrical epitaph from Sardis mentioning a woman called Ματις.75 The parallels he finds for the forms Ματις and Ματεις come predominantly from central and southern Anatolia (Phrygia, Cilicia, Lycaonia, Pisidia),76 thus suggesting the possible source. However, as he justly notes, the stem Ματ- is so short that it can easily appear in onomastics of different regions with no need to assume any contacts.77 This is particularly true of the micro-Asiatic Lall- namen, hypocoristic names deriving from child language, which find parallels in various parts of the world. Moreover, in some places, indigenous names could have experienced certain trans- formations, fully adjusting to the Greek social and linguistic environment. Cf. various suffixal derivatives of the stem Ματ- whose morphology is clearly Greek: fem. Ματώ, Chios, Robert, Noms indigènes 343–344 (LGPN I 300); Teos, CIG 3101.3; Ionia(?), IG X.2 677 (LGPN V.A 285); Ματίχα, Thasos, LGPN I 299; Ματτία (with expressive gemination), Kydonia, GVI 958 (LGPN I 300); Amphipolis, SEG XXXIX 571 (LGPN IV 225); Μάτιον, Athens, IG II2 1534.B.289 (LGPN II 299); wife of an Amisan IG II2 8068; Ephesos, SEG LX 1164 (LGPN V 285);78

73 E. I. Solomonik, “Iz epigrafiki Chersonesa,” VDI 4 (1983) 80, no. 11 [SEG XXXIII 603; LGPN IV 224], second-third century A.D. 74 Robert, Noms indigènes 344. 75 L. Robert, “The Inscription of the Sepulchral Stele from Sardis,” AJA 64 (1960) 53–56, and Noms indigènes 337–341; cf. his Opera minora selecta VII (Amsterdam 1990) 149. 76 See also Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen §§882–2 and 882–3; SEG XLIX 1846 (Phrygia, A.D. 180–220), LX 1490 (Seleukeia, Pisidia, imperial). 77 Robert, Noms indigènes 342, 348. 78 On the femine name Μάτιον see F. Bechtel, Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen 1902) 135.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

286 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES and masc. Μάτων, Athens (LGPN II 299); Ματίων, Tanagra, IG VII 1187 (LGPN III.B 270); Ματίλλας, Ephesos, W. Lesch- horn, Lexikon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Münzen II (Vienna 2009) 664. As to the name Ματα, the possibility of its Iranian origin was rejected by Robert, who relied on E. Benveniste’s opinion: “Le nom Ματα lui aussi, est ce qu’on voudra, sauf iranien.”79 On this point, however, one can recall the name of Xerxes’ eunuch Ματάκας or Ματακᾶς mentioned by Ctesias (FGrHist 688 F 13.155); its Iranian origin is in no doubt, but the exact form (*Mata-ka- or *Nata-ka-) and meaning are not ascertained.80 Admitting that the stem Ματ- may partially overlap with the Greek, Egyptian, Semitic, and Thracian onomastics, Zgusta includes in his list of micro-Asiatic names only the above- mentioned Mata from Amisos.81 However, the name Mata on a marble grave marker from Attica (SEG XXXII 318: ΜΑΤΑ | ΜΥΛΗΤΟΝ | ΠΟΛΙΤΙΣ) was also regarded by O. Masson as non-Greek.82 A new reading of this inscription was suggested by T. Corsten.83 Unlike the previous editions which assume the names of three different women, he sees it as a single female name with a city-ethnic of Miletoupolis in Mysia: Ματα | Μυλητου̣|πολῖτις. Claiming that the majority of occurrences of the name Mata come from Macedonia, Thrace, and Crimea, Corsten assumes its Thracian origin. While his interpretation of the text is plausible, his localization of the name does not withstand scrutiny. The instances from northern Greece and the Black Sea region he adduces include Sirrha in Macedonia (SEG

79 Robert, Noms indigènes 345. 80 R. Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk (SBWien 736 [2006]) 255–256; IPNB V.5A 267, no. 230. 81 Kleinasiatische Personennamen §882–1. 82 O. Masson, “Nouvelles notes d’anthroponymie grecque,” ZPE 119 (1997) 75 (repr. Onomastica graeca selecta III [Nanterre 2000] 282). 83 T. Corsten, “Prosopographische und onomastische Notizen II,” Epigr Anat 39 (2006) 125–127 [SEG LVI 273].

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 287

XXXV 764.6: [Μ]άτα µήτηρ, second-third century A.D.), Pla- tania in Macedonia (SEG XXXII 676: dat. Ματᾳ Κουνοι- σιήους or Κουνθισιήους(?), third century A.D.), Thrace (IG XII.9 813: Ματ[ί]α Μανίτου Θρᾶιτα, third/second century B.C.), and Tauric Chersonesos (SEG XXXIII 603: Ματα, second/third century A.D.). However, only in two cases, Pla- tania and Chersonesos, does the name appear clearly on the stone, Ματ[ί]α of IG XII.9 813 being irrelevant. [Μ]άτα of SEG XXXV 764 is only one of the possible restorations of the name. Other possibilities include Δᾶτα (IG II2 6422, LGPN II 99, Attica, first/second century A.D.), Ὀάτα (LGPN III.A 338, Palaiopolis, Hellenistic), and Τάτα (fifteen occurrences in LGPN). Of these, Τάτα, which in Hellenistic and Roman times seems to have been particularly popular in northern Greece (LGPN III.A 421), would perhaps be the best candidate. The remaining occurrences of the name Mata in Platania and Chersonesos are both fairly late examples, not earlier than the second century A.D. Ματα is attested in the fourth/fifth century A.D. in Kyrenaika (SEG XLVII 2196D). By contrast, the instances from Asia Minor are earlier in date and more numerous, which seems to speak in favour of the Anatolian origin of the name: (1) Smyrna (I.Smyrna 107), second century B.C.), (2) area of Saittai, Lydia (SEG XXXV 1241.6, A.D. 57), (3) Miletoupolis, Mysia (above: third century B.C.), (4) Amisos (Robert, Noms indigènes 344, third century B.C.). Cf. also the male name Ματις in Chersonesos, fourth/third century B.C. (graffito inside ring-foot of a black-glazed bowl: Ματιος is most likely genitive rather than nominative as assumed by Solomonik84 and LGPN IV 224). Δάµαρχος: This name is hitherto unattested in Chersonesos, but is well known in the Bosporan area, where in the Attic- Ionian form Δήµαρχος it occurs in a defixio from Pantikapaion (AA 1907, 127A [SGD no. 170]) as well as in Gorgippia (CIRB 1137.A.i 49, third century B.C.) and possibly Phanagoria (CIRB

84 E. I. Solomonik, Graffiti s chory Chersonesa (Kiev 1984) 1171.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

288 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES

1111, 389–349 B.C.). Γόργυθος: Except for a single instance from Kallatis (ISM III 126.3), where it occurs as a patronymic in a second-century B.C. catalogue of citizens, this name does not seem to have en- joyed any popularity in the Black Sea region. However, outside of the region it is well attested, particularly in Attica (IG II2 2370; SEG XXXVIII 206.4), Arcadia (Tegea: IG V.2 6.73; Mantineia: 278.5, 323.B.25), and Euboea (Eretria: IG XII.9 245.A.221, B.68, 159; 249.204; 571), forming a large family of single-stem and compound names deriving from γοργός. Thus Ael. Herodian GG III.2 859: Γοργυθίων παρὰ γοργός, Γόρ- γυθος καὶ Γοργυθίων. Cf. Bechtel, HP 111–112. Διονύσιος: This banal Greek name occurs in Chersonesos on several occasions (LGPN IV 104). As noted already, both defixiones are evidently the product of the same individual. The defigens’ choice to use a different binding formula in each case is, however, remarkable.85 While Tablet 1 employs the direct binding formula (first-person singular verb + name of the defictus), Tablet 2 takes the form of a mixture of a prayer and a wish. Unlike the typical prayer and wish formulae, which use a second-person imperative referring to the supernatural powers and a third-person optative with the victim as the subject,86 it employs a volitive optative in a second-person plural. Implicitly addressing the chthonian gods and daimones, the defigens expected them to perform the act of binding, while remaining uncertain whether his prayer would actually be heard. This choice of the verb mood and the devi- ation from the standard formula also suggest that no pro- fessional magos was employed to perform the ritual.

85 For an example of κατάδεσµοι employing different formulae on the very same tablet see SGD no. 64 (Karystos, fourth century B.C.). 86 On different types of binding formulae see in detail Kagarow, Fluch- tafeln 28–34; C. A. Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera (Oxford 1991) 4–10.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 289

Even though most of the personal names in the tablets have not been previously attested in the area, some interesting ob- servations can still be made. Unfortunately, one cannot tell whether Damarchos and Aristomenes of Tablet 2 were in fact residents of the local rural community or rather city dwellers or officials involved in these affairs. We can be more confident, however, with regard to the main targets of both curse tablets. Along with the fact of their being produced by the same person, their find context strongly suggests a close relationship between Ariakes of Tablet 1 and Mata of Tablet 2. It would not be farfetched to regard them as members of the same household. Obviously, the farmhouse, next to the outer wall of which both tablets were deposited, must have been their home. Whether by choosing such a deposition place the defigens meant to guide the daimones all the way ‘to the door’ of the intended victims, or whether the choice was inspired by the idea that immediate spatial contact with the victim would ensure the maximum effect of the curse, cannot be decided. Whatever the case, the placing of cursed objects inside or near the homes of their targets was and remains a widespread witchcraft practice that can be traced in various communities up to modern times, both in the Mediterranean and far beyond.87 Plato (Leg. 933B) mentions images of molded wax placed at doorways of a victim (κήρινα µιµήµατα πεπλασµένα ἐπὶ θύραις). Discussing magical practices of the Galician Ukrainians, Koenig notes among their favorite methods of causing injury those called “putting under” (pidklady), when the witch puts cursed objects under the door- step of the victim.88 The foundations of the house walls or the gates have been considered equally appropriate locations.89 Such deposition places prove, however, to be far less com-

87 V. Argyrou, “Under a Spell: The Strategic Use of Magic in Greek Cypriot Society,” American Ethnologist 20 (1993) 261; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.69. 88 S. Koenig, “Magical Beliefs and Practices among the Galician Ukrain- ians,” Folklore 48 (1937) 64. 89 G. Popov, Russkaja narodno-bytovaja medicina (St. Petersburg 1903) 29.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

290 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES mon as far as the Greco-Roman defixiones are concerned. The decided majority of these tablets come from the grave and cemetery contexts, other most preferred places of deposit being various wells, springs, or sanctuaries of chthonian gods.90 A rare example of deposition in or near the home of the intended targets is offered, however, by a fourth-century B.C. lead defixio from House D in the Athenian Agora. The tablet cursing several bronze-workers who worked at the forge or foundry in its courtyard “had been tucked into the foundation or under the floor of the house.”91 As reasonably assumed by Young, one of these smiths was possibly the owner of House D at that time. Other known parallels date mainly from the Roman period. Here one can mention the first-century A.D. defixio from Emona (modern-day Ljubljana) found at the entrance area of a Roman villa.92 A comparable find context is also reported for the so-called tablet of Priscilla from Gross-Gerau published by Scholz and Kropp, who refer to a few other comparable cases.93 The presence of non-Greek names in our κατάδεσµοι, which casts new light on the multicultural composition of the Cher- sonesean rural population, requires some additional comments. The proximity of the Scythian, Iranian-speaking tribes which

90 Kagarow, Fluchtafeln 19–24; Faraone, in Magika Hiera 3 with n.7; Gager, Curse Tablets 18–20. Cf. PGM VII.451–452. 91 R. S. Young, “An Industrial District of Ancient Athens,” Hesperia 20 (1951) 222–223 (SGD no. 20). Jordan (SGD p.163) also refers to a folded and pierced lead sheet fragment found in one of the rooms inside the Vari House in the Attic countryside (J. E. Jones, A. J. Graham, and L. H. Sackett, “An Attic Country House below the Cave of Pan at Vari,” BSA 68 [1973] 373), yet it remains unknown whether this was in fact a curse tablet. 92 O. Cuntz, “Römische Inschriften aus Emona,” Jahrbuch für Altertums- kunde 7 (1913) 205–208 = V. Hoffiller and B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugo- slavien I no. 168. 93 M. Scholz and A. Kropp, “ ‘Priscilla, die Verräterin’. Eine Fluchtafel mit Rachegebet aus Gross-Gerau,” in K. Brodersen and A. Kropp (eds.), Fluchtafeln: Neue Funden und neue Deutungen zum antiken Schadenzauber (Frankfurt am Main 2004) 36–37.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

VLADIMIR F. STOLBA 291 occupied the northern and central areas of Crimea and remained in constant contact with the Greek city-states94 would make the emergence of two Iranian names (including the patronymic) in Tablet 1 no surprise. Numerous Iranian anthro- ponyms recorded in the defixiones and stone inscriptions from the nearby city of Olbia are indeed Scythian names. This is, however, not the case in Chersonesos, where none of the attested names, including the Iranian ones, could be reliably attributed as Scythian.95 Given Ariakos’ presumed personal status and his close association with Tablet 2’s principal defictus, Mata, whose name suggests some Anatolian link, their Persian origin seems far more likely. Apparently, we have here a family of epoikoi from the southern coast of the Black Sea, perhaps from Chersonesos’ mother-city Herakleia Pontike or its territory in Bithynia.96 The agricultural colonization of the vast territories in western and north-western Crimea around 360 B.C. created a massive demand for labor which could in no way be met by the city’s own human resources without a significant supply from else- where. The arrival of a new population is indirectly suggested by the sudden expansion of the city’s urban territory, which doubled in size around the middle of the same century or slightly afterwards. As indicated by an influx of micro-Asiatic names in the onomastics of Chersonesos apparent from the second half of the fourth century B.C.,97 at least a portion of

94 V. F. Stolba, “Demografičeskaja situacija v Krymu v V–II vv. do n. e. (po dannym pis’mennych istočnikov),” Peterburgskij archeologičeskij vestnik 6 (1993) 56–61. 95 V. F. Stolba, “Barbaren in der Prosopographie von Chersonesos (4.–2. Jh. v. Chr.),” in B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkul- turation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters (Tübingen 1996) 439–466. 96 On the epoikoi in the Black Sea Greek city-states see A. Avram, “Le rôle des époikoi dans la colonisation grecque en mer Noire: quelques études de cas,” Pallas 89 (2012) 197–215. 97 Stolba, in Hellenismus 457–458, 465 fig. 1.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292

292 TWO HELLENISTIC DEFIXIONES these newcomers must have arrived from the southern Pontic coast. In the subsequent centuries, among the Chersonesean rural population, we also find persons bearing both micro- Asiatic and Persian names, the best example of which is fur- nished by the so-called graffito of Maidates found at the settlement of Beljaus.98 It is not until the late second century B.C. when Chersonesos had lost control over most of its rural territories that proper Scythian names start to appear in the Greek inscriptions from the area.99

January, 2016 Aarhus University Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5 8000 Aarhus C Denmark [email protected]

98 O. D. Daševskaja and B. J. Michlin, “Sinopskaja amfora s nadpis’ju Majdata,” Kratkie soobščenija instituta archeologii 143 (1975) 50–53; Solomonik, Graffiti s chory Chersonesa, no. 456; Stolba, in Hellenismus 448–452, nos. 12 and 21. On some Persian names which penetrated Bosporos together with the micro-Asiatic names see S. R. Tochtas’ev, “Iz onomastiki severnogo Pričer- nomor’ja. XIX. Maloazijskie imena na Bospore,” VDI 1 (2007) 276–194, nos. 2, 21, 35–38. 99 See e.g. S. R. Tochtas’ev, “Predvaritel’noe zaključenie o nadpisi na ostrakone s gorodišča Čajka,” in V. A. Kutajsov and T. N. Smekalova, Ortli. Antičnye usad’ba i vinogradnik na dal’nej chore Chersonesa (Simferopol 2013) 263, fig. 142.

————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 263–292